5.  The applicant, Ms Khava Sagayeva, was born in 1964 and lives in Urus-Martan in the Urus-Martan district, the Chechen Republic.
6.  The applicant is the sister of Mr Khasan Sagayev, who was born in 1973.
7.  At the material time the applicant lived in Alkhan-Yurt (in the documents submitted it is also referred to as Alkhan-Kala), in the Urus‑Martan district in Chechnya. In August 2000 Mr Khasan Sagayev, along with a number of other relatives, was living in the applicant’s house while she was away in Ingushetia.
8.  At around 12 p.m. on 8 August 2000 a group of about twenty to thirty masked and armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and several UAZ minivans. They broke into the house and quickly searched the premises, taking away all documents and family photographs. They forced Mr Khasan Sagayev into the APC with registration number 802 and drove away to an unknown destination.
9.  Later on the same day, 8 August 2000, at the request of the applicant’s relatives, Mr Supyan Mokhchayev, the Mayor of Grozny, contacted a military commander, who informed him that APC no. 802 belonged to a military regiment stationed at the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala. Mr Mokhchayev also learnt from anonymous witnesses that Mr Khasan Sagayev had been taken to the military base in Khankala and questioned by three investigators.
10.  The applicant has not seen Mr Khasan Sagayev since his abduction on 8 August 2000.
11.  The applicant did not witness the abduction. Her account before the Court was based on statements provided by her relatives and neighbours.
12.  The Government did not contest the facts as presented by the applicant, but pointed out that there was no unequivocal evidence confirming the alleged involvement of State servicemen in the incident.
13.  From the documents submitted it can be seen that the applicant lodged an official complaint concerning her brother’s abduction on 14 December 2000.
14.  On 14 April 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25040 (in the documents submitted, the case is also referred to as no. 78012).
15.  On 20 June 2001 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was not informed of this development.
16.  The investigation remained suspended from 20 June 2001 to 19 January 2009. From the documents submitted it is apparent that the applicant did not contact the authorities at any time during this period. The applicant has stated that between 2001 and 2008 she was ill and her sister, Ms Kh.S., maintained correspondence with the authorities, both personally and through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the human rights organisations Memorial and Materi Chechni (Mothers of Chechnya). The Government did not dispute this part of the applicant’s submission.
17.  On 20 November 2008 the applicant asked to be granted victim status in the criminal case.
18.  On 19 January 2009, in response to a request from the applicant, the investigation was resumed.
19.  On the same date, 19 January 2009, the investigators granted the applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned her. She stated that she had not witnessed the abduction herself but had learnt of it from her relatives.
20.  On 21 January 2009 the applicant requested permission to access the entire contents of the investigation file. The investigators rejected her request on 2 February 2009.
21.  On 22 January 2009 the investigators questioned the applicant’s sister, Ms A.S., who stated that she had not witnessed the abduction either but had learnt of it from her relatives.
22.  On 22 January 2009 the investigators questioned another of the applicant’s sisters, Ms Kh.S., who described the circumstances of the abduction. Her statement was similar to the applicant’s account before the Court.
23.  On 19 February 2009 the criminal proceedings were suspended. The applicant was informed thereof.
24.  On 23 March 2009 the investigation was resumed and the applicant was informed thereof.
25.  Between 25 and 29 March 2009 the investigators questioned three of the applicant’s fellow villagers, whose statements did not provide any new information as they had not witnessed the abduction.
26.  On 1 April 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
27.  On 9 April 2009 the investigators questioned a local police officer, Mr A. A., who stated that the police had been unable to establish the whereabouts of the applicant’s missing brother.
28.  On 10 June 2010 the applicant asked the investigators to update her on the progress of the investigation and on 25 August 2010 she was informed that the proceedings remained suspended.
29.  The investigation into the abduction was subsequently repeatedly suspended and resumed; the last suspension took place on 6 October 2011. The proceedings are still pending.
30.  The applicants, Ms Roza Mukayeva, who was born in 1959, and Mr Khamzat Mukayev, who was born in 1956, live in the village of Duba‑Yurt in the Shali district, the Chechen Republic.
31.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Rasul Mukayev, who was born in 1979.
32.  At the material time Mr Rasul Mukayev was suffering from a second-degree disability. The applicants claimed in their submission that he had been detained during “sweeping-up” operations carried out in Duba‑Yurt in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and released.
33.  In 2004 the village was surrounded by numerous checkpoints. Two checkpoints were located in the vicinity of the applicants’ house in Duba‑Yurt.
34.  On 3 December 2004 at around 5 a.m. an APC arrived at the applicants’ house. Another APC and two UAZ minivans were waiting in a neighbouring street. A group of eight to ten armed servicemen in masks and camouflage uniforms broke into the house. Threatening the applicants in unaccented Russian, they searched the house, handcuffed Mr Rasul Mukayev, pulled his T-shirt over his head and forced him outside, where one of them reported to someone via portable radio: “The object is taken. We are leaving”. The servicemen told the applicants that they were taking Mr Rasul Mukayev to the Shali district department of the interior (the ROVD).
35.  The applicants subsequently learnt from anonymous witnesses that their son had allegedly been taken to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala.
36.  The applicants have not seen Mr Rasul Mukayev since 3 December 2004.
37.  The Government did not contest the facts as presented by the applicants, but pointed out that there was no unequivocal evidence confirming the alleged involvement of State servicemen in the incident.
38.  On 3 December 2004 an investigation team examined the crime scene.
39.  On 3 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account before the Court.
40.  On 3 December 2004 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Mr R.Kh., and their neighbour, Mr S.N., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account before the Court.
41.  On 23 December 2004 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 36148.
42.  On 23 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed of this development.
43.  On 27 May 2005 the investigation was resumed following criticism from the supervising prosecutor, who gave orders for the basic steps to be undertaken.
44.  On 2 July 2005 the investigation granted the second applicant victim status in the criminal case.
45.  On 2 July 2005 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants’ account before the Court. In addition, he stated that he had followed the abductors and had seen them driving in the direction of the federal forces’ main military base in Khankala.
46.  On 7 July 2005 the investigation was again suspended and the applicants again not informed.
47.  On 21 September 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant him permission to access the entire contents of the investigation file. On 12 November 2010 the investigators partially granted the request by providing twelve documents from the file.
48.  On 20 December 2011 the investigation was resumed following a corresponding request from the applicants. The proceedings are still pending.